My admiration for Governor General Michaelle Jean has risen exponentially ever since I saw the video of her crouching over the body of a freshly killed seal, helping to eviscerate it, and then eating a piece of its raw heart (Warning: the video is graphic!) There was no squeamishness or hesitation there. She was impressive.
And so the debate began. Animal rights activists and seal hunt opponents strongly denounced our Governor General. A PETA spokesperson called it a "sick PR stunt", "a predictable, if revolting, attempt to save a dying industry." The fact that the European Union ban on commercial sealing products is unrelated to the rights of indigenous persons to hunt seals for their own domestic use seems to have been lost on the critics. There was nothing in the Governor General's act of respect for Inuit culture which could be taken as a statement of support for commercial sealing.
Supporters thought the Governor General was "marvellous" and "professional". She was showing class and courtesy by respecting the Inuit people of Rankin Inlet by participating with them in a celebration of their culture and traditions.
So where do I stand? First, I am the last person to criticize our Governor General for eating raw seal heart. I will eat anything. For example, in Peru I ate a whole long haired Peruvian guinea pig, despite the fact that back in Canada I used to have one for a pet. (Its name was Papua). I eat sushi, liver, brains, kidneys, heart, intestines... you cook or prepare it, I will eat it. I have never eaten raw seal heart (I don't think), but if it ever hits the sushi counters, I probably will.
Second, I find the negative reaction to the Governor General's act ethnocentric and hypocritical. How many times have Canadians read, with mouths watering, about fancy state dinners where delicacies such as B.C. salmon, Nova Scotia lobster, Alberta beef, Saskatchewan bison or venison, or Brome Lake duck were on the menu? There is no outcry, just jealousy. Does one think that these animals cheerfully volunteered to jump into ovens or boiling pots of water so that they could participate in the dinner? What is it about raw seal eaten in its traditional way by the people of the North which made this individual display by our Governor General so revolting to some? And where is their respect for multiculturalism, diversity, and the promotion and maintenance of indigenous cultures and traditions, which I assume they support?
Third, despite my diet, I do love animals and abhor acts of animal cruelty. To the extent that the animals which I have eaten have been subjected to inhumane conditions or treatment prior to them becoming part of my meal, I acknowledge my indirect, and therefore wrong, participation in those acts. The ethical treatment of animals is important, whether or not you are a vegetarian.
Good on you, Governor General!
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Obama Makes His Selection
The guessing game is over. President Obama has selected Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Some brief background notes. Judge Sotomayor is currently a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She has an impressive and diverse legal background. She is a graduate of Yale Law School, has experience as an Assistant District Attorney in New York, a corporate litigator, a trial judge, and an appellate court judge. Her life story is also very interesting and inspiring. She grew up in the Bronx, her father died when she was nine, she was raised by a hard working mother. She steadily but surely advanced herself and now stands at the pinnacle of her profession. In many respects her story resembles that of the person who has appointed her, and politics aside, one marvels at the promise of the American dream being fulfilled yet again.
So what are the politics? My preliminary research indicates that the buzz words which we will hear many times during the up-coming appointment process will be "identity politics". The knock against Sotomayor will be that she comes at issues not from the perspective that "justice is blind" but from the view that "justice" and perhaps even "wisdom" depends on the identifying characteristics of the judge. The judge's "identifying" characteristics such as her race, religion, and life experiences, will influence the way she will resolve the dispute before her, and by implication the intellectual quality of that decision.
Critics will point to a talk which Judge Sotomayor gave in her Judge Mary G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at Berkeley in 2001 where she asserted that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life". The talk, entitled "A Latina Judge's Voice" , can be found in (2002), 13 Berekeley La Raza Law Journal at p. 87. In her talk, Judge Sotomayor stated that she was "not so sure" that she would agree with the statement that " a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases". She noted that although some are able to understand the experiences of others, this "takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give", others have "limited ability to understand the experiences of others", and yet others "simply do not care".
Critics will also raise the case of Ricci v DeStefano where as part of a three-judge panel of the appeals court, Judge Sotomayor refused to rehear a case of alleged discrimination against white firefighters in Connecticut. The firefighters alleged that they were denied promotion even though they successfully completed the test requirements, because no black firefighters were eligible for advancement. This decision is currently being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The proposition that the identifying characteristics and life experiences of a judge do not play an important role in his or her judging is nonsense, and certainly Judge Sotomayor cannot be criticized for pointing out the obvious. This is why we strive for diversity on the bench. The proposition, however, that some judges are "wiser" than others and will reach better decisions because of their gender, race or other identifying characteristics is to assert something that is altogether different. Perhaps Judge Sotomayor did not mean to say this and I am sure she will be questioned about it. Her talk at Berkeley however certainly went further than merely pointing out that people of different identifying characteristics see things differently.
Which brings me to my last point. Isn't it wonderful that, at the end of the process, Americans, who will be fundamentally affected by decisions of their Supreme Court, will actually know something about their newest justice? The hard questions will be asked and answered, and in this process both the questioner and the responder will have their opinions tested and shaped by the other. And I will bet you one thing. At the end of the process, even Canadians will be more familiar with Judge Sotomayor then most of us are with our own recent Supreme Court of Canada appointment, Justice Tom Cromwell.
Some brief background notes. Judge Sotomayor is currently a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She has an impressive and diverse legal background. She is a graduate of Yale Law School, has experience as an Assistant District Attorney in New York, a corporate litigator, a trial judge, and an appellate court judge. Her life story is also very interesting and inspiring. She grew up in the Bronx, her father died when she was nine, she was raised by a hard working mother. She steadily but surely advanced herself and now stands at the pinnacle of her profession. In many respects her story resembles that of the person who has appointed her, and politics aside, one marvels at the promise of the American dream being fulfilled yet again.
So what are the politics? My preliminary research indicates that the buzz words which we will hear many times during the up-coming appointment process will be "identity politics". The knock against Sotomayor will be that she comes at issues not from the perspective that "justice is blind" but from the view that "justice" and perhaps even "wisdom" depends on the identifying characteristics of the judge. The judge's "identifying" characteristics such as her race, religion, and life experiences, will influence the way she will resolve the dispute before her, and by implication the intellectual quality of that decision.
Critics will point to a talk which Judge Sotomayor gave in her Judge Mary G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at Berkeley in 2001 where she asserted that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life". The talk, entitled "A Latina Judge's Voice" , can be found in (2002), 13 Berekeley La Raza Law Journal at p. 87. In her talk, Judge Sotomayor stated that she was "not so sure" that she would agree with the statement that " a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases". She noted that although some are able to understand the experiences of others, this "takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give", others have "limited ability to understand the experiences of others", and yet others "simply do not care".
Critics will also raise the case of Ricci v DeStefano where as part of a three-judge panel of the appeals court, Judge Sotomayor refused to rehear a case of alleged discrimination against white firefighters in Connecticut. The firefighters alleged that they were denied promotion even though they successfully completed the test requirements, because no black firefighters were eligible for advancement. This decision is currently being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The proposition that the identifying characteristics and life experiences of a judge do not play an important role in his or her judging is nonsense, and certainly Judge Sotomayor cannot be criticized for pointing out the obvious. This is why we strive for diversity on the bench. The proposition, however, that some judges are "wiser" than others and will reach better decisions because of their gender, race or other identifying characteristics is to assert something that is altogether different. Perhaps Judge Sotomayor did not mean to say this and I am sure she will be questioned about it. Her talk at Berkeley however certainly went further than merely pointing out that people of different identifying characteristics see things differently.
Which brings me to my last point. Isn't it wonderful that, at the end of the process, Americans, who will be fundamentally affected by decisions of their Supreme Court, will actually know something about their newest justice? The hard questions will be asked and answered, and in this process both the questioner and the responder will have their opinions tested and shaped by the other. And I will bet you one thing. At the end of the process, even Canadians will be more familiar with Judge Sotomayor then most of us are with our own recent Supreme Court of Canada appointment, Justice Tom Cromwell.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Mulroney Faces More Cross-Examination
You can tell me to get a life, if you want, but yes - I spent another day watching the Oliphant Commission's lawyer, Richard Wolson, cross examining former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. As you will know from my previous posting, the inquiry is looking into the relationship between Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber.
As one of the commentators pointed out in reference to my earlier posting, Mr. Mulroney has a tendency to overstate; a penchant for hyperbole. The most striking example of this was his comment, made under oath yesterday, that "I have never in my life knowingly done anything wrong". That's some statement. In commenting on it, John Ivison, writing in today's National Post, stated: "Since neither Gandhi nor Mother Teresa would likely have made that claim, it could be dismissed as an irrational exuberance were it not for the fact he said it three times".
Muroney's statement, which one hopes was not to be taken at face value, in my opinion sums up most of Mr. Mulroney's testimony. He simply will not admit that aside from exercising bad judgment, anything he did in his whole relationship with Karlheinz Schreiber or anything he said in his prior testimony or discussions concerning it, was improper or wrong. Even where there are clear inconsistencies in his version of events and the statements of others or independent documents, Mr. Mulroney dismisses them either by putting the blame for these inconsistencies on others, or by not recalling them.
A few examples will illustrate this point. One of Mr. Mulroney's main contentions is that he had an on-going retainer with Mr. Schreiber which Mr. Mulroney unilaterally chose to end in 1999. This assertion is important to Mulroney's position that no moneys were received for work done or agreements made while Mr. Mulroney was still in office, and, according to him, explains why the income was not declared and taxes were not paid on the $225,000 until 1999/2000. It was, according to Mulroney, an open-ended retainer, with no set termination date.
There are, however, documents which contradict this. As I learned from yesterday's proceedings, Mr. Mulroney's close friend and advisor, Mr Fred Doucet, suggested to Mr. Mulroney in 1999, that the terms of the retainer be memorialized. A document was written by Mr. Doucet, in consultation with Schreiber and Mulroney, which described the retainer as being a three year retainer (1993,94,95) for $250,000.00. This diverges both with the $225,000 figure stated by Mulroney and more importantly with his on-going, open ended retainer version of events. Mr. Mulroney did not take issue with Mr. Doucet's document at the time the document was prepared and approved. Why not?, he was asked. The answer was to the effect that Mr. Mulroney did not actually see the document, it was read out to him on the telephone, and he did not sign it. In other words, it is an inaccurate document, even though it was prepared by Mr. Mulroney's trusted friend and approved by Mulroney himself.
On the same point of the terms of the retainer, it was pointed out to Mulroney that when he made his voluntary tax declaration in or around 2000, only three years of income were disclosed - $75,000 for each of the three years commencing in 1993. Why, he was asked, did the voluntary disclosure statement declare that the total income was earned in those specific three years if it was an open-ended retainer which was only terminated in 1999? Mr. Mulroney did not know the answer. He stated that he had nothing to do with the voluntary disclosure; it was prepared by his lawyer. How, however, did his tax advisor know to put in $75,000 a year for three years? Mr. Mulroney did not know that one either. Apparently, according to Mulroney, he must have found out somehow, but not from Mr. Mulroney. Did Mulroney know how much of his income was taxed? No - he did not know that either. It turned out of course that the agreement with the revenue authorities taxed him on only one half of his earned income. Why was that? Mr. Mulroney did not know.
Mr. Mulroney also apparently did not know that the lock on his safety box was changed. When a document was pointed out to him from the bank that stated that this was changed at his own request, Mr. Mulroney was surprised. Maybe his staff did it, opined Mulroney. He also did not know when the $75,000 was taken out of the U.S. safety deposit box. He knew it was taken out in increments, but he did not know when he did that and how large the increments were.
Brian Mulroney is a lawyer, was the Prime Minister, was the president of a company, and served on a number of major corporations' Board of Directors. He knew to a precise detail which world leaders he met, when and where. But as for his own personal affairs as they related to the Schreiber affair he seemed to know precious little.
What does this all mean? Let's see what Justice Oliphant thinks.
As one of the commentators pointed out in reference to my earlier posting, Mr. Mulroney has a tendency to overstate; a penchant for hyperbole. The most striking example of this was his comment, made under oath yesterday, that "I have never in my life knowingly done anything wrong". That's some statement. In commenting on it, John Ivison, writing in today's National Post, stated: "Since neither Gandhi nor Mother Teresa would likely have made that claim, it could be dismissed as an irrational exuberance were it not for the fact he said it three times".
Muroney's statement, which one hopes was not to be taken at face value, in my opinion sums up most of Mr. Mulroney's testimony. He simply will not admit that aside from exercising bad judgment, anything he did in his whole relationship with Karlheinz Schreiber or anything he said in his prior testimony or discussions concerning it, was improper or wrong. Even where there are clear inconsistencies in his version of events and the statements of others or independent documents, Mr. Mulroney dismisses them either by putting the blame for these inconsistencies on others, or by not recalling them.
A few examples will illustrate this point. One of Mr. Mulroney's main contentions is that he had an on-going retainer with Mr. Schreiber which Mr. Mulroney unilaterally chose to end in 1999. This assertion is important to Mulroney's position that no moneys were received for work done or agreements made while Mr. Mulroney was still in office, and, according to him, explains why the income was not declared and taxes were not paid on the $225,000 until 1999/2000. It was, according to Mulroney, an open-ended retainer, with no set termination date.
There are, however, documents which contradict this. As I learned from yesterday's proceedings, Mr. Mulroney's close friend and advisor, Mr Fred Doucet, suggested to Mr. Mulroney in 1999, that the terms of the retainer be memorialized. A document was written by Mr. Doucet, in consultation with Schreiber and Mulroney, which described the retainer as being a three year retainer (1993,94,95) for $250,000.00. This diverges both with the $225,000 figure stated by Mulroney and more importantly with his on-going, open ended retainer version of events. Mr. Mulroney did not take issue with Mr. Doucet's document at the time the document was prepared and approved. Why not?, he was asked. The answer was to the effect that Mr. Mulroney did not actually see the document, it was read out to him on the telephone, and he did not sign it. In other words, it is an inaccurate document, even though it was prepared by Mr. Mulroney's trusted friend and approved by Mulroney himself.
On the same point of the terms of the retainer, it was pointed out to Mulroney that when he made his voluntary tax declaration in or around 2000, only three years of income were disclosed - $75,000 for each of the three years commencing in 1993. Why, he was asked, did the voluntary disclosure statement declare that the total income was earned in those specific three years if it was an open-ended retainer which was only terminated in 1999? Mr. Mulroney did not know the answer. He stated that he had nothing to do with the voluntary disclosure; it was prepared by his lawyer. How, however, did his tax advisor know to put in $75,000 a year for three years? Mr. Mulroney did not know that one either. Apparently, according to Mulroney, he must have found out somehow, but not from Mr. Mulroney. Did Mulroney know how much of his income was taxed? No - he did not know that either. It turned out of course that the agreement with the revenue authorities taxed him on only one half of his earned income. Why was that? Mr. Mulroney did not know.
Mr. Mulroney also apparently did not know that the lock on his safety box was changed. When a document was pointed out to him from the bank that stated that this was changed at his own request, Mr. Mulroney was surprised. Maybe his staff did it, opined Mulroney. He also did not know when the $75,000 was taken out of the U.S. safety deposit box. He knew it was taken out in increments, but he did not know when he did that and how large the increments were.
Brian Mulroney is a lawyer, was the Prime Minister, was the president of a company, and served on a number of major corporations' Board of Directors. He knew to a precise detail which world leaders he met, when and where. But as for his own personal affairs as they related to the Schreiber affair he seemed to know precious little.
What does this all mean? Let's see what Justice Oliphant thinks.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Brian Mulroney's Sordid Tale
Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's testimony at the Oliphant Commission has made for fascinating drama, especially for lawyer-types and political junkies.
A bit of background for those readers unfamiliar with this tale. Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister of Canada from 1984 to 1993. During his time in office, he had a number of interactions and private meetings with a shady German-Canadian lobbyist, named Karlheinz Schreiber. Mr. Schreiber's occupation was to try to land Canadian government contracts for foreign companies. In particular he represented a German manufacturing company, Thyssen, which sold armoured vehicles. (Mr. Schreiber is currently facing extradiction to Germany on charges of corruption and tax evasion.)
Within months of leaving office in 1993, Mr. Mulroney met with Mr. Schreiber at 3 different times at hotels and a cafe, and on each occasion was given tens of thousands of dollars in cash, stuffed in envelopes. The total from the 3 was at least $225,000.00. Rather than depositing this significant loot in bank accounts, Mr. Mulroney put and kept the money in safety deposit boxes. He did not declare these payments as taxable income until six years later.
In 1995, the Government of Canada accused Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber of a criminal fraud involving millions of dollars. The accusation was contained in a letter written to the government of Switzerland sent to them in order to obtain Mr. Schreiber's bank records. The letter with its allegations became public, and Mr. Mulroney brought a multi-million dollar lawsuit for defamation against the Government of Canada. The allegations of criminality related to the sale of Airbus jets to Air Canada, and became known as the Airbus Affair.
In connection with the defamation action brought by Mr. Mulroney against the Canadian government relating to the Airbus Affair, Mr Mulroney was questioned under oath by the defendant government's lawyers. This was in 1996. The questioning dealt with Mr. Mulroney's relationship with Schreiber. He was asked whether after he left office Mr. Mulroney had maintained contact with Mr. Schreiber. Mr. Mulroney's answer was that they "would have a cup of coffee, I think, once or twice". There was no mention of a business relationship, of Mr. Schreiber having had allegedly retained Mulroney a month or so after he left office to lobby for him internationally, and no mention of moneys (at least $225,000 in cash) having being paid presumably for this purpose. The defamation action was settled and Mr. Mulroney was paid $2.1 million for his legal costs and given an apology.
Fast forward to the present. The Oliphant Commission was set up in 2008 to deal with a number of matters relating to the relationship that existed between Mr. Schreiber and Brian Mulroney when he was a Member of Parliament and Prime Minister of Canada. The Commissioner's mandate is to answer some questions, such as: did the two men have business dealings, did they have any agreements to do business, or were payments made, during the time Mr.Mulroney was in office? The relationship and dealings between the two men entered into both before and after Mulroney left office are within the terms of reference of the Commission. While Mulroney has denied that any agreement or arrangement between the two was made before he left office, this is a point disputed by Schreiber in his testimony.
What do I make of all of this so far? It should be noted that the inquiry has not concluded and Mr. Mulroney will be back for more questions on Tuesday.
In general terms, I, and I doubt anyone would disagree with this opinion, find Mr. Mulroney's business relationship with Mr. Schreiber scandalous. Former Prime Ministers of Canada, who are experienced in business and lawyers to boot, would not have entered into a business relationship with Karlheinz Schreiber on the terms which Mulroney described, if they would have entered into any relationship with him at all. The retainer was paid by cash in tens of one thousand dollar bills, put into envelopes which were delivered in hotels and cafes, there was no written agreement describing the purpose, duration and terms of this retainer, no bank account was set up for the deposit of the funds, and absolutely no paper records were kept. And recall that all of this allegedly only commenced just months after Mulroney left office. The only sensible conclusion one can draw is that the parties wanted this whole arrangement to be kept secret, and they tried their best to hide it. Why they wanted it so is something the Oliphant Commission might help us understand. But that they wanted it hidden seems beyond doubt.
I find Mr. Mulroney's description of how at the time of the defamation action he was being beseiged by his enemies who wanted to kill and crush him and his family, Nixonesque. Here is how he described it to the Oliphant Inquiry, in his own words:
"I know these people want to kill me..", and
"The nine lawyers sitting there, out to crush me and my family. I was fighting for my life and the honour of my family, and I was confronted by a huge government apparatus, spending unlimited money to do me in."
In Mr. Mulroney's eyes, the enemy was not only the Government of Canada but their lawyers as well. One would have thought that Mr. Mulroney, as a lawyer himself, would have been able to distinguish between the defendants who allegedly falsely defamed him, and the lawyers whom the government engaged to represent it. Absent from Mr. Mulroney's testimony was the civility and professionalism which members of the legal profession are expected to exhibit towards each other. Not only were the lawyers lumped into the group which was out to kill and crush Mulroney and his family, but the contempt he had for their abilities as lawyers was not held back. According to Mulroney, these "high priced" lawyers basically blew it. They did not even know what questions to ask, and certainly he was not going to help them figure it out. At one point, for example, he characterized their examination techniques as "disjointed".
A critical aspect of Mulroney's testimony is his firm assertion that he answered the question about whether he maintained contact with Schreiber after he left office truthfully, by simply noting that "he would have had a cup of coffee with him, I think once or twice". According to Mr. Mulroney, he was asked whether he maintained contact and not about the type or nature of the contact. The fact that the coffee get-togethers included the alleged retainer agreement and the payment of tens of thousands of dollars in cash payments, was not asked, says Mulroney, so he did not tell. The counter-argument of course is that he did not merely answer "yes" to the question, and leave it at that. If he had, I presume that the next question would have related to the nature of the contact, and Mr. Mulroney would have had to disclose more about it. Mr. Mulroney however answered with more than a "yes". He trivialized the nature of the contact by saying that it involved a get together for coffee, he thinks once or twice. This arguably implied that that was all there was to it, and forestalled any further probing by the government lawyer.
Although different in nature, that brought to my mind at least the Bill Clinton approach to answering an incriminating question. One will recall that part of Clinton's problems were caused by his stating under oath that he did not have a "sexual affair" or "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky. He insisted that this was true because of the way he defined these terms. Oral sex didn't count. It will be interesting to see what the Commissioner thinks of Mulroney's similarly narrow view of what was being asked of him and how he should truthfully and fully have answered it.
So that in a nutshell is our home grown scandal, currently being played out and televised live for anyone wanting to watch it. I gather from press reports that the interest is not intense and spectators are not breaking down the doors to get in. Perhaps this is because it an an old story, which has been dragging on now for years, involving a Prime Minister who has been out of office for 16 years and whom Canadians don't much like anyway. I for one find it intriguing.
A bit of background for those readers unfamiliar with this tale. Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister of Canada from 1984 to 1993. During his time in office, he had a number of interactions and private meetings with a shady German-Canadian lobbyist, named Karlheinz Schreiber. Mr. Schreiber's occupation was to try to land Canadian government contracts for foreign companies. In particular he represented a German manufacturing company, Thyssen, which sold armoured vehicles. (Mr. Schreiber is currently facing extradiction to Germany on charges of corruption and tax evasion.)
Within months of leaving office in 1993, Mr. Mulroney met with Mr. Schreiber at 3 different times at hotels and a cafe, and on each occasion was given tens of thousands of dollars in cash, stuffed in envelopes. The total from the 3 was at least $225,000.00. Rather than depositing this significant loot in bank accounts, Mr. Mulroney put and kept the money in safety deposit boxes. He did not declare these payments as taxable income until six years later.
In 1995, the Government of Canada accused Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber of a criminal fraud involving millions of dollars. The accusation was contained in a letter written to the government of Switzerland sent to them in order to obtain Mr. Schreiber's bank records. The letter with its allegations became public, and Mr. Mulroney brought a multi-million dollar lawsuit for defamation against the Government of Canada. The allegations of criminality related to the sale of Airbus jets to Air Canada, and became known as the Airbus Affair.
In connection with the defamation action brought by Mr. Mulroney against the Canadian government relating to the Airbus Affair, Mr Mulroney was questioned under oath by the defendant government's lawyers. This was in 1996. The questioning dealt with Mr. Mulroney's relationship with Schreiber. He was asked whether after he left office Mr. Mulroney had maintained contact with Mr. Schreiber. Mr. Mulroney's answer was that they "would have a cup of coffee, I think, once or twice". There was no mention of a business relationship, of Mr. Schreiber having had allegedly retained Mulroney a month or so after he left office to lobby for him internationally, and no mention of moneys (at least $225,000 in cash) having being paid presumably for this purpose. The defamation action was settled and Mr. Mulroney was paid $2.1 million for his legal costs and given an apology.
Fast forward to the present. The Oliphant Commission was set up in 2008 to deal with a number of matters relating to the relationship that existed between Mr. Schreiber and Brian Mulroney when he was a Member of Parliament and Prime Minister of Canada. The Commissioner's mandate is to answer some questions, such as: did the two men have business dealings, did they have any agreements to do business, or were payments made, during the time Mr.Mulroney was in office? The relationship and dealings between the two men entered into both before and after Mulroney left office are within the terms of reference of the Commission. While Mulroney has denied that any agreement or arrangement between the two was made before he left office, this is a point disputed by Schreiber in his testimony.
What do I make of all of this so far? It should be noted that the inquiry has not concluded and Mr. Mulroney will be back for more questions on Tuesday.
In general terms, I, and I doubt anyone would disagree with this opinion, find Mr. Mulroney's business relationship with Mr. Schreiber scandalous. Former Prime Ministers of Canada, who are experienced in business and lawyers to boot, would not have entered into a business relationship with Karlheinz Schreiber on the terms which Mulroney described, if they would have entered into any relationship with him at all. The retainer was paid by cash in tens of one thousand dollar bills, put into envelopes which were delivered in hotels and cafes, there was no written agreement describing the purpose, duration and terms of this retainer, no bank account was set up for the deposit of the funds, and absolutely no paper records were kept. And recall that all of this allegedly only commenced just months after Mulroney left office. The only sensible conclusion one can draw is that the parties wanted this whole arrangement to be kept secret, and they tried their best to hide it. Why they wanted it so is something the Oliphant Commission might help us understand. But that they wanted it hidden seems beyond doubt.
I find Mr. Mulroney's description of how at the time of the defamation action he was being beseiged by his enemies who wanted to kill and crush him and his family, Nixonesque. Here is how he described it to the Oliphant Inquiry, in his own words:
"I know these people want to kill me..", and
"The nine lawyers sitting there, out to crush me and my family. I was fighting for my life and the honour of my family, and I was confronted by a huge government apparatus, spending unlimited money to do me in."
In Mr. Mulroney's eyes, the enemy was not only the Government of Canada but their lawyers as well. One would have thought that Mr. Mulroney, as a lawyer himself, would have been able to distinguish between the defendants who allegedly falsely defamed him, and the lawyers whom the government engaged to represent it. Absent from Mr. Mulroney's testimony was the civility and professionalism which members of the legal profession are expected to exhibit towards each other. Not only were the lawyers lumped into the group which was out to kill and crush Mulroney and his family, but the contempt he had for their abilities as lawyers was not held back. According to Mulroney, these "high priced" lawyers basically blew it. They did not even know what questions to ask, and certainly he was not going to help them figure it out. At one point, for example, he characterized their examination techniques as "disjointed".
A critical aspect of Mulroney's testimony is his firm assertion that he answered the question about whether he maintained contact with Schreiber after he left office truthfully, by simply noting that "he would have had a cup of coffee with him, I think once or twice". According to Mr. Mulroney, he was asked whether he maintained contact and not about the type or nature of the contact. The fact that the coffee get-togethers included the alleged retainer agreement and the payment of tens of thousands of dollars in cash payments, was not asked, says Mulroney, so he did not tell. The counter-argument of course is that he did not merely answer "yes" to the question, and leave it at that. If he had, I presume that the next question would have related to the nature of the contact, and Mr. Mulroney would have had to disclose more about it. Mr. Mulroney however answered with more than a "yes". He trivialized the nature of the contact by saying that it involved a get together for coffee, he thinks once or twice. This arguably implied that that was all there was to it, and forestalled any further probing by the government lawyer.
Although different in nature, that brought to my mind at least the Bill Clinton approach to answering an incriminating question. One will recall that part of Clinton's problems were caused by his stating under oath that he did not have a "sexual affair" or "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky. He insisted that this was true because of the way he defined these terms. Oral sex didn't count. It will be interesting to see what the Commissioner thinks of Mulroney's similarly narrow view of what was being asked of him and how he should truthfully and fully have answered it.
So that in a nutshell is our home grown scandal, currently being played out and televised live for anyone wanting to watch it. I gather from press reports that the interest is not intense and spectators are not breaking down the doors to get in. Perhaps this is because it an an old story, which has been dragging on now for years, involving a Prime Minister who has been out of office for 16 years and whom Canadians don't much like anyway. I for one find it intriguing.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Obama And The Photos
President Obama's decision not to release the photographs of detainee abuse is by now well known and has been much debated. For a flavour of the discussion, especially from the left, one could do no better than to read Glenn Greenwald's commentary in Salon.com. Mr. Greenwald's criticisms of President Obama and his decisions in this and other matters are stinging. For example, he states that "ever since he was inaugurated, Obama has taken one extreme step after the next to keep concealed both the details and the evidence of Bush's crimes, including rendition, torture and warrantless eavesdropping". He quotes ACLU lawyer Amrit Signh, who says inter alia, that "President Obama's promise of accountability is meaningless, this is inconsistent with his promise of transparency, it violates the government's commitment to the court". He quotes Andrew Sullivan, who he describes as "one of Obama's earliest and most enthusiastic supporters" as saying that "Slowly, but surely, Obama is owning the cover-up of his predecessors' war crimes."
Mr. Greenwald is also very critical of the "defend-Obama-at-all-cost cheerleaders". He explains this remark by noting their willingness to defend whatever Obama decides, whenever he decides it, even if the decisions are logically inconsistent or contradictory. These are the folks whose only actual belief is "I support what Obama does because it's Obama who does it".
Now as for me. Where do I stand on this? I have been accused by my detractors of my own inconsistencies. According to them, I apparently attack Obama's policies not because I do not like these policies, but because I do not like Obama the "policy maker". Why, my detractors ask, should I criticize Obama for adopting "Bush like" policies which they assume I favour?
First, I do not approve of torture, concealing evidence, depriving detainees of due process, or covering up war crimes. If Bush did approve of any of these things, he did not have my support regarding them. I supported John McCain because I saw him as a person of great character, courage and honesty who would have done the right things.
Second, following from the first, I think the photographs should be released. Covering up the truth, never works. It's out there. Deal with it.
Third, and I have said this several times before, there is a special onus on a candidate whose only stated reason for running for President was to "change" things, to create the new America, to be the anti-Bush, to actually try to do it. There was no portfolio of accomplishment which Obama brought to the Presidency, there was only a "promise" of a future portfolio. So let's see it. Otherwise it was all a sales pitch.
Fourth, and I have also stated this, there is a special responsibility on the part of the Obama supporters to hold your man to account. Or at least admit that what Greenwald said was right. Your only belief is that "I support what Obama does because it's Obama who does it."
Mr. Greenwald is also very critical of the "defend-Obama-at-all-cost cheerleaders". He explains this remark by noting their willingness to defend whatever Obama decides, whenever he decides it, even if the decisions are logically inconsistent or contradictory. These are the folks whose only actual belief is "I support what Obama does because it's Obama who does it".
Now as for me. Where do I stand on this? I have been accused by my detractors of my own inconsistencies. According to them, I apparently attack Obama's policies not because I do not like these policies, but because I do not like Obama the "policy maker". Why, my detractors ask, should I criticize Obama for adopting "Bush like" policies which they assume I favour?
First, I do not approve of torture, concealing evidence, depriving detainees of due process, or covering up war crimes. If Bush did approve of any of these things, he did not have my support regarding them. I supported John McCain because I saw him as a person of great character, courage and honesty who would have done the right things.
Second, following from the first, I think the photographs should be released. Covering up the truth, never works. It's out there. Deal with it.
Third, and I have said this several times before, there is a special onus on a candidate whose only stated reason for running for President was to "change" things, to create the new America, to be the anti-Bush, to actually try to do it. There was no portfolio of accomplishment which Obama brought to the Presidency, there was only a "promise" of a future portfolio. So let's see it. Otherwise it was all a sales pitch.
Fourth, and I have also stated this, there is a special responsibility on the part of the Obama supporters to hold your man to account. Or at least admit that what Greenwald said was right. Your only belief is that "I support what Obama does because it's Obama who does it."
Friday, May 8, 2009
Civilian Deaths In Afghanistan
The number of civilians killed in recent U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan is reportedly now at 147. The United Nations estimated that more than 2000 civilians were killed in fighting last year. Over the past few years thousands of innocent civilians have reportedly been killed.
Canada is of course part of NATO's fighting forces in Afghanistan. Yet few in Canada or the United States seem particularly outraged over these horrendous numbers of killed innocents. U.S Defence Secretary expresses his "regret". My local newspaper, the Edmonton Journal, covers the story not on page one, but on page 13. Everyone seems rather content to express regret over the incidents, but to ascribe blame to the Taliban who "use civilians as shields" and who "hides among noncombatants during attacks" (Edmonton Journal, page A13, Friday May 8).
Where are the outraged Michael Ignatieffs and Louise Arbours who were all too quick to condemn Israel when civilians died in Lebanon and to judge the Israeli actions as "war crimes"? Where are the academic boycotters, the campus protesters, the non-stop television coverage, the UN Security Council emergency sessions, and the constant stream of invectives directed this time not at the Israeli army but at NATO troops? Where indeed.
Canada is of course part of NATO's fighting forces in Afghanistan. Yet few in Canada or the United States seem particularly outraged over these horrendous numbers of killed innocents. U.S Defence Secretary expresses his "regret". My local newspaper, the Edmonton Journal, covers the story not on page one, but on page 13. Everyone seems rather content to express regret over the incidents, but to ascribe blame to the Taliban who "use civilians as shields" and who "hides among noncombatants during attacks" (Edmonton Journal, page A13, Friday May 8).
Where are the outraged Michael Ignatieffs and Louise Arbours who were all too quick to condemn Israel when civilians died in Lebanon and to judge the Israeli actions as "war crimes"? Where are the academic boycotters, the campus protesters, the non-stop television coverage, the UN Security Council emergency sessions, and the constant stream of invectives directed this time not at the Israeli army but at NATO troops? Where indeed.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Obama and Military Commissions
You may not have been following this story. I wasn't, but a colleague (who happens to be an Obama supporter, but of course, who isn't? I do after all work in a university. ) pointed it out to me. I feel duty bound, of course, to pass it on to you.
Apparently the Obama administration's positions on the Guantanamo inmates and the closing down of military commissions to try the prisoners have become a lot less clear cut. The New York Times reported on May 1, that the administration "is moving toward reviving the military system for prosecuting Guantanamo detainees" which Obama himself had previously criticized. The story notes that during the campaign Obama stated that "by any measure our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure" and declaring that as president he would "reject the Military Commissions Act".
Reaction to the news has been critical. The Australian opens its account with the words "Barack Obama is on the verge of breaking two key campaign promises..." Even releasing all of the 241 Guantanamo detainees now seems unlikely. An ACLU lawyer stated that the revival of the military commission system "would be a grave error and a huge step backward". German newspapers are critical. One editorial wrote that Obama is "discrediting both himself and the US.". Another stated that "whenever (Obama) takes a step forward, he stumbles backwards as well".
I point this out not to necessarily defend or attack the military commission system. My inclination is to side with human rights and legal rights advocates on this and to hope that the Obama administration carries through with its promises, but I am not an expert on this. As readers of this blog will quickly cotton onto, my point is to again highlight the exaggerated hopes and claims that Obama supporters had and still apparently cling to. After all, it is unlikely that Bush supporters will come out with a condemnation of policies adopted in the Bush administration. That leaves the task of holding the Obama administration's feet to the fire on critical high value issues to those who support him. (See for example Vince Warren's editorial "Obama's rhetoric loftier than actions".)
Apparently the Obama administration's positions on the Guantanamo inmates and the closing down of military commissions to try the prisoners have become a lot less clear cut. The New York Times reported on May 1, that the administration "is moving toward reviving the military system for prosecuting Guantanamo detainees" which Obama himself had previously criticized. The story notes that during the campaign Obama stated that "by any measure our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure" and declaring that as president he would "reject the Military Commissions Act".
Reaction to the news has been critical. The Australian opens its account with the words "Barack Obama is on the verge of breaking two key campaign promises..." Even releasing all of the 241 Guantanamo detainees now seems unlikely. An ACLU lawyer stated that the revival of the military commission system "would be a grave error and a huge step backward". German newspapers are critical. One editorial wrote that Obama is "discrediting both himself and the US.". Another stated that "whenever (Obama) takes a step forward, he stumbles backwards as well".
I point this out not to necessarily defend or attack the military commission system. My inclination is to side with human rights and legal rights advocates on this and to hope that the Obama administration carries through with its promises, but I am not an expert on this. As readers of this blog will quickly cotton onto, my point is to again highlight the exaggerated hopes and claims that Obama supporters had and still apparently cling to. After all, it is unlikely that Bush supporters will come out with a condemnation of policies adopted in the Bush administration. That leaves the task of holding the Obama administration's feet to the fire on critical high value issues to those who support him. (See for example Vince Warren's editorial "Obama's rhetoric loftier than actions".)
Poor Arlen Specter
So it appears that the Democratic party, or at least its Senate leader Harry Reid, broke its promise to Arlen Specter. When Specter decided to abandon his party of almost 30 years to join the Democrats, he says he was told by Reid that he would retain his senate seniority. According to CNN, however, the full Senate has voted to strip him of his seniority, "dropping him to the bottom of the pile on every committee he sits on". This includes the Senate Judiciary Committee. So when Souter's replacement is being questioned by the committee, Specter will be the last person on the committee to speak. Seeing that Specter proudly boasts about his seniority on his web site, this will come as a big blow to the " newly born " Democrat. Aside from the humiliation involved, the Democratic Senator Specter will now have the problem of at least having to change his website dramatically.
Too bad for him, I say! And good for USA democratic institutions at work. Unlike Canada, where politicians like Belinda Stronach can switch parties and become instant Cabinet Ministers, the message to Arlen, even from his new found friends is .. "not so fast". Back of the line for you.
So now what does Arlen do? In his latest statement, he says that although he was promised that his seniority would be maintained, he will now have to wait until after the 2010 election to have this confirmed. Good luck Arlen!
Too bad for him, I say! And good for USA democratic institutions at work. Unlike Canada, where politicians like Belinda Stronach can switch parties and become instant Cabinet Ministers, the message to Arlen, even from his new found friends is .. "not so fast". Back of the line for you.
So now what does Arlen do? In his latest statement, he says that although he was promised that his seniority would be maintained, he will now have to wait until after the 2010 election to have this confirmed. Good luck Arlen!
Friday, May 1, 2009
Political Potshot
Vice-President Joe Biden warns Americans not to travel on airplanes, subways, or go to confined places. Apparently that's what he is also telling his family. Although the White House has insisted that this is not what the Vice President meant to say, that is exactly what he said and meant to say. Listen to him yourself. So the White House compounds the initial idiocy, with ridiculous spin.
Now it's all very well for the Vice President to avoid subways and confined public places. But how is the average Joe going to do that? Not that Biden cares that much about the average Joe, considering his miserly charitable instincts.
Add this bit of nonsense coming out of Biden's mouth to his other classic statements. You will remember that he forgot when T.V. was invented, didn't know that Herbert Hoover was President in 1929, and thought that the word JOBS has three letters. But when you have the Vice President of the United States telling people not to travel on airplanes or subways, in effect putting out a panic call, I think he goes too far. And so do most folks.
Now it's all very well for the Vice President to avoid subways and confined public places. But how is the average Joe going to do that? Not that Biden cares that much about the average Joe, considering his miserly charitable instincts.
Add this bit of nonsense coming out of Biden's mouth to his other classic statements. You will remember that he forgot when T.V. was invented, didn't know that Herbert Hoover was President in 1929, and thought that the word JOBS has three letters. But when you have the Vice President of the United States telling people not to travel on airplanes or subways, in effect putting out a panic call, I think he goes too far. And so do most folks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
